I confess to being a football fan and like millions of others around the globe am watching the world cup in North America with increasing enthusiasm. My family has accused me, quite rightly, of being a bit fanatical over sport such as football or tennis – getting really upset when my team or player performs badly or loses and overly ecstatic when they win. But why is this? What is the cause of this mildly irrational behaviour which I am sure I am not unique in experiencing. In my blog back in February Managing our Chimps in Negotiations I referred to The Chimp Paradox by Professor Steve Peters, a sports psychologist who proposes that our brains that can be characterised as the Human, the Chimp and the Computer. He suggests that “For supporters, the intense highs and lows of a match are driven directly by the inner Chimp. When a team loses or a referee makes a bad call, the Chimp often takes control, leading to frustration, anger, or irrational panic. By understanding the model, fans can learn to acknowledge these emotions, manage them, and rationally accept outcomes.” This certainly makes sense to me, and I suspect will also to many of my readers. However, why you may well ask is this relevant in our professional world?
I propose that these partisan principles and behaviour also occur in our working lives and can operate to our detriment and to that of our colleagues and clients. When by way of example we work for a law practice, other firms and their lawyers we encounter in deals or disputes may well come to be considered like the opposing team, the enemy, not to be trusted and to be beaten at all costs. The overriding principle becomes that we are competitors on the transaction concerned and more generally for attracting new clients and work. In fact, our common professional principles and practice are very much what bind us together and should enable us to rise above this more petty partisan behaviour. This does not mean failing to serve our clients in the best way we can. Quite the contrary. In tough situations in IT contract negotiations (or even litigation) when both sides seem to be irretrievably locked in conflict, I have found that taking my professional counterpart aside in another room or to a nearby coffee bar can result in a much more constructive and ultimately rewarding conversation. Problems and related behaviour that seemed intractable become capable of solution when looked at calmly and more rationally. These side bars can also encourage creative and innovative ways forward that were masked by the emotional atmosphere in the real or virtual room. They do work best as a one-to-one professional conversation with no “showboating” in front of clients or even sometimes colleagues.
AI proposes that “Professionalism in negotiations shifts the focus from a stressful battle of wills into a collaborative, value-creating process. It establishes a foundation of trust, prevents costly emotional impasses, protects long-term partnerships, and enhances your overall credibility at the bargaining table.” See this Harvard Law School blog Relationships in Negotiation: The Advantages of Rapport Building whose theme is that “Strong working relationships in negotiation help establish the trust needed to share information and craft mutually beneficial deals”. We can do this “By establishing a strong sense of personal rapport”. This prevents the tendency in my context here to “let your chimp loose on the pitch” and “to become irritated or upset by each other’s statements and behavior. Negotiators who have established rapport are less likely to resort to threats and ultimatums than those who have not.” A common profession encourages its practitioners to stand above petty behaviour and seek a mutually beneficial outcome.
In my field of technology law, I have always encouraged colleagues whether in private practice or in-house to participate in professional organisations such as the Society for Computers & Law in the UK or ITechLaw more globally. These provide opportunities in a “safe” environment outside of the cut and thrust of contract negotiations or litigation to meet professional colleagues in other firms or companies and to learn from and with them. Collectively it may then also be possible to improve say the contracting process for complex technology outsourcing agreements, which is always fraught with challenges. Such contact outside your practice enables informed debate and discussion on new and important topics such as the impact of AI on professionals. Younger professionals can then also learn from peers outside their own organisation. If you should subsequently encounter such “external” colleagues in say an outsourcing contract negotiation this existing common ground helps to establish an effective working relationship which ultimately serves clients better.
Absent such ability to rise above the cut and thrust of the negotiations (or the football game) and see things in perspective matters often seem to escalate until like opposing sports fans in a stadium there is no possible middle ground. It’s so easy to react in kind to emotional behaviour such as getting angry or upset making any meeting of minds or finding common ground virtually impossible.
I like this Cranfield School of Management article Negotiation Strategy Series: 2 Building trust and managing emotions which explores strategies which “can transform potentially contentious exchanges into productive partnerships”. It proposes strategies for managing emotions such as:
And then sets out strategies for building trust including:
Ultimately it suggests “Effective negotiation balances tactical skill with emotional intelligence and trust-building”.
Stephen Covey the educator and author once remarked “When the trust is high, communication is easy, instant and effective”.
While the business coach Peter Kozodoy proposed "Being open, honest and vulnerable about who you really are will inspire a lot of people".
And going back in time, the Greek tragedian Euripides sagely observed “Who cannot open an honest mind No friend will he be of mine.”
I propose that these partisan principles and behaviour also occur in our working lives and can operate to our detriment and to that of our colleagues and clients. When by way of example we work for a law practice, other firms and their lawyers we encounter in deals or disputes may well come to be considered like the opposing team, the enemy, not to be trusted and to be beaten at all costs. The overriding principle becomes that we are competitors on the transaction concerned and more generally for attracting new clients and work. In fact, our common professional principles and practice are very much what bind us together and should enable us to rise above this more petty partisan behaviour. This does not mean failing to serve our clients in the best way we can. Quite the contrary. In tough situations in IT contract negotiations (or even litigation) when both sides seem to be irretrievably locked in conflict, I have found that taking my professional counterpart aside in another room or to a nearby coffee bar can result in a much more constructive and ultimately rewarding conversation. Problems and related behaviour that seemed intractable become capable of solution when looked at calmly and more rationally. These side bars can also encourage creative and innovative ways forward that were masked by the emotional atmosphere in the real or virtual room. They do work best as a one-to-one professional conversation with no “showboating” in front of clients or even sometimes colleagues.
AI proposes that “Professionalism in negotiations shifts the focus from a stressful battle of wills into a collaborative, value-creating process. It establishes a foundation of trust, prevents costly emotional impasses, protects long-term partnerships, and enhances your overall credibility at the bargaining table.” See this Harvard Law School blog Relationships in Negotiation: The Advantages of Rapport Building whose theme is that “Strong working relationships in negotiation help establish the trust needed to share information and craft mutually beneficial deals”. We can do this “By establishing a strong sense of personal rapport”. This prevents the tendency in my context here to “let your chimp loose on the pitch” and “to become irritated or upset by each other’s statements and behavior. Negotiators who have established rapport are less likely to resort to threats and ultimatums than those who have not.” A common profession encourages its practitioners to stand above petty behaviour and seek a mutually beneficial outcome.
In my field of technology law, I have always encouraged colleagues whether in private practice or in-house to participate in professional organisations such as the Society for Computers & Law in the UK or ITechLaw more globally. These provide opportunities in a “safe” environment outside of the cut and thrust of contract negotiations or litigation to meet professional colleagues in other firms or companies and to learn from and with them. Collectively it may then also be possible to improve say the contracting process for complex technology outsourcing agreements, which is always fraught with challenges. Such contact outside your practice enables informed debate and discussion on new and important topics such as the impact of AI on professionals. Younger professionals can then also learn from peers outside their own organisation. If you should subsequently encounter such “external” colleagues in say an outsourcing contract negotiation this existing common ground helps to establish an effective working relationship which ultimately serves clients better.
Absent such ability to rise above the cut and thrust of the negotiations (or the football game) and see things in perspective matters often seem to escalate until like opposing sports fans in a stadium there is no possible middle ground. It’s so easy to react in kind to emotional behaviour such as getting angry or upset making any meeting of minds or finding common ground virtually impossible.
I like this Cranfield School of Management article Negotiation Strategy Series: 2 Building trust and managing emotions which explores strategies which “can transform potentially contentious exchanges into productive partnerships”. It proposes strategies for managing emotions such as:
- Label emotions. Acknowledging emotions – both yours and your counterpart's – creates space for more rational discussion.
- Avoid overreaction. Strategic negotiators sometimes deliberately provoke emotional responses to gain concessions.
- Assess angry displays. Not all displays of emotion are genuine. Learning to distinguish between calculated anger and genuine frustration helps you respond appropriately.
And then sets out strategies for building trust including:
- Establish process transparency. Beginning negotiations with clarity about process creates psychological safety and sets expectations for all parties.
- Reciprocal information sharing. Opening up about priorities and constraints encourages similar disclosures from your counterpart, creating fertile ground for value creation.
Ultimately it suggests “Effective negotiation balances tactical skill with emotional intelligence and trust-building”.
Stephen Covey the educator and author once remarked “When the trust is high, communication is easy, instant and effective”.
While the business coach Peter Kozodoy proposed "Being open, honest and vulnerable about who you really are will inspire a lot of people".
And going back in time, the Greek tragedian Euripides sagely observed “Who cannot open an honest mind No friend will he be of mine.”
RSS Feed
